2005 PLP 226 (YLR)

Muhammad Amin alias Irfan and another v. The State 2004 SCMR 1560; Ali Gul. v. The State 2003 SCMR 201; Umar Hayat v. The State PLD 1995 SC 526; Azim and others v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 145; PLD 2004 SC 822 and 2004 PCr. LJ 1801 ref. Gauhar Zaman Khan Kundi for Petitioners. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, D.A.-G. and Alamgir Khan Wazir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th November, 2004. Sakhi Zaman and his son Naik Zaman petitioners stand involved in case F.I.R. No.61, dated 13-8-2004 registered at Police Station Township, Bannu under sections 320/34, P.P.C. read with sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. They have moved instant application seeking their release on bail after refusal of the same from two forums below vide orders, dated 6-9-2004 and 14-9-2004 respectively.

2. The petitioners are accused of having on 13-8-2004 at 0030 hours caused explosion in the Baithak of Obaidullah complainant as a result of which Laiq Zaman lost his life whereas his son Noor Zaman sustained injuries.

3. Mr. Gauhar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioners contended that the petitioner were belatedly charged on 18-8-2004 which was the outcome of pre meditation, pre-consultation and ulterior motive; that occurrence having taken place during dark hours of the night, identification was not possible and that petitioner Sakhi Zaman being an aged man, was not physically capable of climbing over a wall of 10/12 feet high and facilitate the crime. To substantiate the pleas, he placed reliance on Muhammad Amin alias Irfan and another v. The State (2004 SCMR 1560), Ali Gul. v. The Stae (2003 SCMR 201), Umar Hayat v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 526) and Azim and others v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 145).

4. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State assisted by Mr. Alamgir Khan Wazir, Advocate for the complainant opposing the bail application, contended that the prosecution has collected sufficient material to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime, therefore, the petitioners have been refused the concession of bail for cogent reasons and the impugned order is not open to exception. Reliance was placed on PLD 2004 SC 822 and 2004 PCr.LJ 1801.

5. The question of grant/refusal of bail is to be determined judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Where the prosecution satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence falling in the first category, the Court must refuse bail. On the other hand, where the accused satisfies the Court that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of such offence, then-the Court must release him on bail. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether, or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of offence, the Court will not conduct a preliminary inquiry/trial but will only make tentative assessment i.e. will take all the material collected by the police for and against the accused and be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt. Deeper appreciation of the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case is neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage. So, the Court will not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at that stage.

6. No doubt it is true that the petitioners are not directly charged in the F.I.R. but it is equally true that on 18-8-2004 statement of Noor Zaman injured was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. who has directly charged the petitioners for commission of the offence. He also recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C before a competent court wherein too, he has charged the petitioners. In such circumstances, I am of the view that apparently no case for grant of bail has B been made out and the Courts below have rightly declined bail to the petitioners. The application fails which is hereby dismissed. Bail refused. H.B.T./262/P Bail refused.